Everyone Agrees. No One Changes.
Ever sat in a meeting where everyone agrees—and nothing changes? If you work in HR, you’ll recognise the pattern. People listen, nod, smile… and then go away and do exactly what they were going to do anyway.
Some parts of the organisation lean in. Others lean back. Same policies. Same messages. Very different levels of engagement.
And there’s always a reason.
“You see, we’re different.”
It’s rarely confrontational. More often it sounds helpful—context HR has somehow missed.
“Our workforce is older… mostly part-time… we can’t release people for training… we don’t get requests to work from home… we don’t have the same turnover, so those recruitment targets don’t work for us.”
Different reasons. Same conclusion.
We moved to a corporate HR model to get everyone singing from the same song sheet. Consistency. Fairness. A clearer employee offer. Less reinventing the wheel.
But old habits die hard.
Standardisation on paper doesn’t mean standardisation in practice. Some departments adopt the new approach and run with it. Others quietly translate it back into how they’ve always done things.
Take performance management. In some teams, one-to-ones are regular, meaningful conversations. In others, annual appraisals are a struggle—and anything more frequent is seen as unrealistic.
Or training. For some managers, developing their people is part of the job. For others, it’s a disruption to the “real work”.
Then there’s wellbeing.
“This softer approach—how does that help reduce absence?” “Our staff have always worked under pressure—it’s the nature of the job.”
What HR sees as modern management, others see as optional—or worse, naïve.
So what’s really going on? Part of it is operational reality. Not every function can offer the same flexibility or release staff easily. HR needs to acknowledge that.
But part of it is mindset. Some managers get results through people. Others get results despite them.
The difference is significant. In areas that engage well with HR, managers see value in consistency, development and employee voice. They are open to doing things differently. They don’t assume their part of the organisation is uniquely exempt. In areas that resist, the focus is narrower. Targets. Deadlines. Output. HR feels like an added layer rather than a source of support.
Over time, this creates two cultures in one organisation.One that is moving forward—experimenting, adapting, trying to engage employees in new ways. And one that is holding the line—relying on what has worked before and questioning the need for change.
The risk isn’t just inconsistency. It’s limitation. Different employee experiences. Uneven opportunities. And over time, employees notice. They compare. They gravitate towards the parts of the organisation where they feel better managed.
HR can adapt the model, but it can’t compensate for managers who opt out.
Senior leaders often acknowledge the issue. They talk about culture, values and the kind of organisation they want to be.
But recognition isn’t enough.If HR is left to “encourage” alignment, progress will be patchy. The more resistant parts of the organisation will simply wait it out.
What makes the difference is visible, consistent leadership.Clear expectations about what good management looks like. A willingness to challenge “we’re different” when it becomes an excuse. And regular reinforcement that people management is not optional.
If senior leaders say it matters, they have to mean it—and be seen to mean it.
Because “we’re different” should explain how we apply good practice—not whether we do.
blairmcpherson.co.uk
